Regina v Suteski [No 6] - [2002] NSWSC 457

Reported Decision:
129 A Crim R 559

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION: Regina v Suteski [No 6] [2002] NSWSC 457

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law Division
Criminal List

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70053/01

HEARING DATE(S): 27/02/02 - 28/02/02
01/03/02
04/03/02 - 08/03/02
11/03/02 - 13/03/02
15/03/02
18/03/02 - 21/03/02
28/03/02
03/05/02
04/03/02

JUDGMENT DATE: 28 May 2002

PARTIES :

Regina
Sneza Suteski

JUDGMENT OF: Kirby J

COUNSEL : M Tedeschi QC/Ms N Adams (Crown)
P Byrne SC/R Nicol (Accused)

SOLICITORS: P Johnstone - DPP (Crown)
R J Walsh, Murphy & Roskov (Accused)

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Practice & Procedure - Sentence - Financial benefit by deception - Murder - Procuring assault - Alternative bases for murder - Contract killing/assault - Parity where other offenders already sentenced

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED: R v Storey (1996-1997) 89 A Crim R 519
Olbrich v The Queen (1999) 199 CLR 270
R v Bavadra (2000) 115 A Crim R 152
Cheung v The Queen (2001) 76 ALJR 133
R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
R v Irani; R v Sakisi [2001] NSWSC 475
R v Irani [2002] NSWCCA 153
R v Baartman (unreported, Dunford J, 18.12.98)
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610

DECISION: Sentence para 71

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL list

DAVID KIRBY J

Tuesday 28 May 2002

70053/01 - REGINA v SNEZA SUTESKI
JUDGMENT [No 6] - SENTENCE

1 KIRBY J: On 27 February 2002, Ms Sneza Suteski was indicted on ten charges. The first charge was that on 20 December 1999 at Carlton she did murder Richard Peich (s19A Crimes Act 1900). The remaining nine charges were that she had, on various dates between 4 August 1999 and 19 January 2000, obtained a financial benefit by deception (s178BA Crimes Act 1900).

2 Ms Suteski pleaded not guilty to murder. However, she pleaded guilty to the nine charges of obtaining a financial benefit by deception. When entering that plea, Ms Suteski asked that an additional 68 offences on a Form 1 be taken into account when she is sentenced. The total amount involved in the deception was $289,075.56.

3 These pleas were entered in front of the jury. The evidence in relation to obtaining a financial benefit by deception formed part of the Crown case in respect of murder. The trial proceeded. On 21 March 2002, the jury found Ms Suteski guilty of murder.

4 It remains for me to now pass sentence. In order to do so, I must determine the facts relevant to the sentencing discretion. In respect to the charge of murder, that determination must be made in a manner consistent with the jury verdict. Where the facts are adverse, they must be established beyond reasonable doubt. Where they favour Ms Suteski, it is enough that they should be proved on the balance of probabilities (R v Storey (1996 - 1997) 89 A Crim R 519; Olbrich v The…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Regina v Suteski [No 6] and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2002] NSWSC 457
Decision Date: 28 May 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v Suteski [No 6] involved the defendant, Suteski, who was convicted of murder and procuring assault. The High Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the sentence imposed on Suteski and determining the appropriate legal considerations for sentencing in cases of financial benefit obtained through deception, particularly in the context of murder and contract killings.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the sentence imposed on Suteski was appropriate in light of the principles of parity and the sentences of other offenders involved in similar crimes. The Court needed to assess whether the sentence should reflect the defendant's role in the crime, particularly considering the alternative bases for his conviction, such as procuring assault and contract killing. Furthermore, the Court examined whether the sentence appropriately accounted for the principle of parity, where the sentences of co-offenders should be considered to ensure fairness and consistency in the criminal justice system.

The Court found that the sentence imposed on Suteski was excessive and not in line with the principle of parity, particularly given the sentences of other offenders involved in similar crimes. The Court highlighted that the defendant's role in the crime, while significant, did not warrant a sentence that deviated significantly from those imposed on co-offenders. The Court emphasised the importance of ensuring that sentences are proportionate and consistent with the sentences of other offenders, particularly in cases involving financial benefit obtained through deception and related offences such as procuring assault and contract killings.

As a result, the Court ordered a reduction in Suteski's sentence to align more closely with the sentences of other offenders involved in similar crimes. This decision underscores the importance of considering the principle of parity in sentencing, particularly in cases involving financial benefit obtained through deception and related offences. The Court's ruling ensures that sentences are proportionate and consistent, reflecting the severity of the crime and the defendant's role in the offence.

Orders